tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN February 26, 2013 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
for those kind words. we go way back. i'm always worried when doug introduces me. he knows an awful lot of stuff he could say. but he always kind of -- he is on his way to the supreme court to i guess a woman we know, great lawyers, going to argue the dna case, and it's something we probably ought to win 9-0. don't you think? so don't blow it. [laughter] >> nine-zip, you know. now, as some of you know, as doug said, we worked noth the u.s. attorney's office, but the notion i was his boss is a complete joke. but it's always a privilege to be with him today, and it's a privilege actually to be included in this important annual meeting. i'd particularly like to welcome this organization's newest
members. 11 state attorneys general who are participating for the first time and i'd like to recognize and thank all the good friends and colleagues here today. thank you for lending your time, you diverse perspectives and your talent to this association's critical work. over the past four years i've been fortunate to work with many of the leaders in the room to confront range of criminal justice, law enforcement, and national security challenges. alongside my colleagues and court parts in the obama administration, including vice president biden, director cordray, and associate attorney general tony west, all of whom you're hearing from this week. we have accomplished, i think, a great deal working together with you across state boundaries and i think across party lines. the justice department has benefited and more importantly, american people have benefited from your tireless work, your expert guidance, and your steadfast commitment to doing
what is best for those we are privileged to serve. and the results speak for themselves. by helping to strengthen the state, federal criminal justice systems, fighting to expand access to legal services and consumer protections, you have addressed persistent challenges and emproved countless lives. you have made victims whole again and brought assistance and healing to troubled areas. in close partnership with the presidents president's fraud task force you have helped approach, identify, and combat fraud. it has never been more systematic. last january many of you joined with the justice department and other partners to bring about the largest mortgage settle independent our history.
since 2009 a lot of you have provided invaluable assistance in the federal investigation into misconduct. behavior that goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis, and no less than 13 of you are moving forward with parallel actions complimenting the department's civil lawsuit. so, protecting our national security to preventing domestic, eradicating human trafficking, crack down on intellectual property crimes and combating youth violence my colleagues and i have been proud and fortunate to stand shoulder to shoulder with each and every one of you. we have streamlined key investigative and enforcement activities across multiple agencies and offices, enabling lead leaders at every levels of government to make the most of precious taxpayer resources and there's no question we're making a measurable difference in the
live ourselves fellow citizens each and every day. yet i recognize, as do all of you, that for all that we have accomplished, our work is really far from over. when it comes to the sacred rights of the american people, much work remains to be done in too many places serious and seemingly intractable public safety challenges per -- persist, and nowhere is this clearer than the evers to eradicate gun violence. gun violence touches every jurisdiction represented here, and steals too many promising futures every year. last december as horrific events in newtown, connecticut, are a shocking reminder of the epidemic that affliction communities close to country, from inner cities to rural areas to tribal lands. on a daily basis this unspeakable is compounded by individual tragedies that tapes
on our street and decimate the lives of our children. every loss is shattering, and inexplicable. each one is an outrage and this is why, as concerned citizens, heartbroken parents and public servants empowered to make a difference on behalf of those we are swore to appropriation it's time for each of to us steel our revolve and renew or commitment to this end of senseless violence. at every level of this administration, and particularly at our nation's department of justice, my colleagues and i are determined to work with organizations like this one to build a bipartisan consensus for taking decisive action to end gun violence. and we will not rest until we've done everything in our power to prevent future tragedies like the one that took place at sandy hook elementary school. of course there will never be a simple, one size fits all
solution for addressing any challenge of this magnitude. and confronting its underlying causes. but we must not allow the size of complexity of the problem to deter us from taking action. earlier this year, under the leadership of vice president biden, i had the privilege of working with my fellow cabinet members. we assembled a series of common sense recommendations for keeping guns from falling into the wrong hands, keeping our young people safe, and keeping our neighborhoods and schools more secure. this comprehensive plan, which president obama announced last month, is founded on a consensus that emerged from the discussions we convened with representatives more than 200 groups of policymakers, antiviolence advocates, gun owners and retailers, private organizations, police chiefs, and victims of gun crimes. at every step forward is predicated on the principle that president obama laid out in the
weeks after the newtown tragedy, that, and i quote here, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, we have an obligation to try. this obligation has driven the administration to call on congress to adopt legislation to require universal background checks so a full background check is performed everytime someone attempts to buy a gun. to impose tough penalties of gun traffickers who help funnel deadly weapons to dangerous criminals to pass a ban on high-capacity magazines. and to pass a ban on military-style assault weapons. updated and stronger than the legislation that was passed in 1994. beyond these proposals, agencies across the administration are currently working to implement the 23 executive actions that president obama announced in order to provide federal officials and state leaders like you with the tools and with the
information that we need to keep our citizens safe. for instance, we have been encouraging private sellers to work with licensed gun dealers, to run their transsalks through the next background check system, something that many already do on a regular basis, and more can begin to do starting immediately. we're moving to strengthen this tool by addressing gaps, making certain that information included in the system is complete, and that it is accurate, and examining all laws to make sure they're effective when it comes to identifying those who should not have access to firearms. we welcome your support for this important work. in ensugar that the next ground change database is as complete as possible, state record are the life blood of the system, and i urge each you've to encourage law enforcement nags your state to make the most of the national crime information center by both supplying and then accessing pertinent crime
data. ncic helps local law enforcement perform their work more safely because it enables every officer on patrol to have at his or her fingertips a database of over a million record that can be tapped into 24 hours day, 365 days a year. in addition the president has taken action to end what has essentially been a freeze on rigorous nonpartisan research into gun violence, and an effective strategy for its prevention by the centers for disease control. he has instructed relevant agencies to issue guidance making clear under current law doctors are not prohibited from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement. direct agencies to finalize regular luigss under the affordable care act that will increase access mental health services f for all who need them, and he has asked officials to work together to develop plans to make schools,
institutions of higher learning, and houses of worship safer. contrary to what a few have said, all of these actions are consistent with the historical use of executive power. not one will infringe upon constitutional rights of law abide citizens and gun owners, and all are essential part moves serious, comprehensive effort to combat gun violence and prevent dangerous people from acquiring and wreaking havoc with deadly weapons. just as important as translating these proposals into reality and advancing our robust national discussion about fix violence prevention, is in the niece to strengthen antiviolence legislation to protect those who risk their lives to keep us safe. to this end the justice department is committed and i remain determined to do everything possible to reinforce the thin blue that stands
between the people and the criminal element that menaces our communities. since 2009, this commitment has led the department to award more than $3.5 billion to our state and local partners under a grand program that helps agencies and departments across the country close budgetary gaps gaps and gn hack s success to resources. additional funding streams have been made available through the cops hiring program, which has awarded more than $1.5 billion to create or to protect over 8,000 jobs in local law enforcement. and as we look toward the future, we are determined to continue making the investments our state and local partners need to build on the progress we established in recent years, and stem the tide of violence against our brave men and women in uniform. that's why the president's plan to reduce gun violence calls for $4 billion in cop-hiring grant funding to support over 15,000 law enforcement officers.
through the department's office of safety working group, we're helping to develop key training and information sharing platforms to allow officers in the field to better anticipate and more effectively confront specific threats in real time. we are exploring evidence-based strategies for preventing violent encounters and helping to make such encounters survivable when the occur, through programs we have distributed officer safety tool kits and provided officers with tactical training and cutting edge tools to responsible up to predictable threats, including ambush style assaults. and thanks to the initiative the bulletproof vests partnership program, which awarded $20 million to help 4,000 jurisdictions purchase protection it equipment, we are helping to save lives, including the lives of at least 13 officers who were saved by vests
purchased in part by federal funds last year. now, there's no question we can all be encouraged by this work. i'm proud of the results we have obtained by working in close partnership with one another. but the reality is that our ability to continue building on this progress will be contingent on congress adopting a balanced deficit reduction plan, and preventing the untenable reduction that will cut over $1.6 billion from the justice department's budget starting this friday. if this so-called sequester goes into effect, it will not only curtail the department's able to support our state and local partners, it will have a negative impact on the safety of americans across this great country. our capacity to respond to crimes, to investigate wrong-doing, to hold criminals accountable, will be reduced, and despite our best efforts to limit the impact of sequestration, there's no question that the effect of
these cuts on our state and local partners, on our entire justice system, and on the the american people, will be profound. today i'd like to join many of the leaders in this room in urging congressional leaders to act southwestly in ensuring that the department will continue to have the funding we need to fulfill our critical missions, support essential allies like you, and keep our citizens safe. despite the breadth and scope of the challenge and the other obstacles and disagreements we faced in recent yearsed, it's clear our resolve to stand together in reducing gun violence and preventing mass shootings and protecting the american people, and in combating threats to law enforcement is stronger than ever. but recent achievements must not be stopping points, and this week, as you move through the ambitious agenda before you and pledge yourselves once more to the difficult work that lies ahead, i want you to know the national association of attorneys general has, and can
always expect, my strongest support. it's an honor to join you today in pledging my personal and professional commitment to continuing to work with you on our shared purpose and our common cause. i am fortunate to count you as partners and colleagues in fulfilling the sacred public trust that has been afforded to each one of us and i look forward to our efforts that can and must lead us in the months and years ahead. thanks very much. [applause] >> as many of you do, general holder is defying his staff and taking one or two questions. do any of the attorneys general have a question for general hold center general storms from colorado. >> i'm not from michigan.
when are washington and colorado going to hear on the federal government's position on marijuana legalization. >> we're still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed, and i would say -- i mean this -- you'll hear soon. we are, i think insuring the last stages of that review, and we're trying to make the determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are, a whole variety of things that go into this determination but the people of michigan and washington deserve an answer and we'll have one relatively soon. >> thank you. >> just a comment, really a thank you. i want to thank you for the extraordinary cooperation your department gave us on the bank mortgage settlement and now on standard and poors. what tom and tony and brian and
jeff did in work with us has just total partners, has been spectacular. i've been an attorney general for a long time and i've never seen this kind of cooperation, this kind of working relationship with the department of justice. thank you. >> that's go to hear but it's an indication how, when we work together, we can accomplish great things, the residential mortgage backed security initiative, the standard and fors matter that is ongoing, think it -- those are two indications of what, if we work together, if we talk to one another, if we put party considerations aside, shows the power we all have working together as a group, and in furtherance of the goals we all have pledged, and that is to serve the american people. i think that, as long as i'm attorney general, that will be the way in which the justice department will conduct itself. i want to thank you all for the great assistance and support you have given us over the years.
>> general mills from maine. >> thank you, general holder, over here. can you please comment on the prospects of continued funding for drug enforcement prosecution and other criminal justice measures? >> we actually -- it's interesting. i'm going to see what onb has sent back to us this afternoon about our budget for next year. so i will be in a better position to answer that question at that point. but i think one of the things we have to look at is the whole question of sequestration. i hope dish think we're going to have a healthy burn jag component in our budget, but under this sequestration issue, we're not going to have the capacity to do all we want to do with burn jag, and one of the things hit in the justice department is our grant-making ability. when we look at where cuts have to come -- these cuts are not ones where i'm given any flexibility. these are cuts that are just
kind of mandated by statute. they're using a meat cleaver to say you can't do this, and as we look at the legislation ability to share funds with our partners to support things we have supported for years, is going to be impacted. that's why this sequestration thing has to be work out. it's going to have an impact on law enforcement. we're going to be looking at fbi agents and dea agents and dtf agents who are going to get furloughs and will not be on the street. federal prosecutors will not be working with you all in task forces and bringing case. there are whole variety of things that will happen as a result of sequestration and that's why i called on in my prepared remarks before congress to resolve this as quickly as possible. >> america's day begins in guam, and this is guam's attorney general,. >> half a day. >> half a day. >> the staff of the museum is still talking about your visit
the war museum there. they still remember how long you slade and appreciated your visit, and -- >> not to have a commercial, but if you are in guam, or in the south pacific, it is something to see this world war ii museum. it's something that is -- it's technically done very well but also an extremely moving movingd informanttive place. it's really something to see. >> and kind of a follow on to maine's question, how the department of justice allocates the cuts should they happen to be very important so we would obviously make a push to not allocate -- just have a smaller allocation of all the cuts, those grants. >> there's very -- limited flexibility in -- under sequestration. we'll do the best we took minimize the harm that occurs as
a result of the sequestration, but the reality is this. there's going to be harm. there's going to be pain and he american people are going to be less safe. that's a fundamental reality that people have to get their heads around. it's not going to be something that's going to happen suddenly. as the president was saying yesterday, but over time, and a relatively small amount of time. we're talk can over the course of weeks, the capacity we have in the justice department is going to be significantly weak 'ed. >> thank you again. we'll reconvene at 11:15. please thank the attorney general for his time. [applause] >> now two supreme court attorneys discuss landmark cases before the supreme court. this is just over an hour.
>> it is a tremendous honor to be here -- mic on? let me try that again. it's a tremendous honor to be here once again with walter dellinger and ted olson, two of the leading light office the supreme court bar. once they become good friends of us and i think they only need very brief intro introductions before we getting into into what the supreme court has been up to. walter dellinger is a partner where he works in their supreme court practice. he is a former acting solicitor general of the united states and head of the office of legal counsel, has argued many cases in the supreme court. ted olson chairs the supreme court appellate practice, also the former solicitor general of the united states and head of the office of legal counsel. ted, how many arguments are you up to now? >> 60 as of the end of next
month. >> with that, let's start diving in. it's another sleepy year here at the supreme court. [laughter] >> well, before we get into the -- what's more boring than domestic relations. i hear ted has some domestic relation cases in court. that's got to be a snoozer. before we turn to those unimportant issues, same-sex marriage, voting rights act, affirm action, let's briefly look at the last term. it's been eight manages since the court issued its decision in the health care case. perhaps a little too soon for history but long enough to have gotten a little perspective of what the court has done so, ted, and walter, any thoughts eight months removed? >> i'll talking about the obamacare or affordable care case. obama's decided now it's okay to call it the obamacare case.
now that it's constitutional. i want to thank you, although it's a new venue, it's an equally precarious perch you put is on, on these little rickety stools. i thought the obama care decision was really interesting, and with dan and walter's permission i wrote down a few notes about some of the irony of the decision i thought i'd share with you. it was 187 page decision. and i found several ironies in the decision, legal and political ironies in the decision. we'll see if walter agrees. >> i don't, but go ahead. [laughter] >> i took these from what you said last year. no. but you've changed your mind. foremost among the ironies is the majority's conclusion that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is a legitimate exercise of congress' power to tax.
during the legislative debate, think we all remember this -- the president and his allies were adamant the mandate was anything but absolutely not a tax. had they marketed this provision as a tax the bill would surely not have passed. the word no votes to spare. so the supreme court saved the signature legislative achievement of the obama administration, precisely because it was what the administration said it was not, and it was not what the administration said that it was. early in the litigation in the case, the administration invoked the federal antiinjunction act which bars suits to restrain the collection of any tax. the government then argued that it was a tax. but the supreme court held the mandate was just what congress called it, a penalty, and not a tax. the choice of labels the court
said cannot control as to whether the law is constitutional but does control as to whether the antiinjunction statute applause. this reminded me of of lewis carroll when i use a word like humpty dumpty it means what i that's mean. neither more nor less. the magic of this dueling, i call it toxonmy, means that because it is a penalty, the court could go forward and consider its legality but because it was a tax and not a penalty, it is a lawful exercise of the taxing power, not an unlawful exercise of congress. and the related irony five justices concluded congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate doing no, that is to say, not buying health insurance. but five justices only chief justice in both camps, held that
congress has the power to impose a tax for doing the very same nothing. not buying health insurance. so the constitutional law professor, president, who insisted that obamacare was constitutional, was right all along. but he was right because he was wrong. he was right that it was discussional because he was wrong that it was not a tax. now, walter is getting warmed up. i can see. this -- i know he'll have an answer for all this, but just a little bit more. the rejoicing by president obama's supporters over this decision may be another irony and may be short-lived. their version of the vastness of federal power was vindicated but only if they want to propose politically unpopular taxes. on the other hand the majority's decision imposed a limit on the federal power to regulate commerce and in another part of the decision, to exercise power
under the spending clause. these authorities under the commerce clause and under the spending clause, are much easier and politically easier to exercise in congress. unfunded mandate are the preferred way of taxing in sheep0s clothing. so the court's decision, while affirming authority that is hard to use, restricted authority that is easy to use, which looks an awful lot like a trojan horse. now, the government barely argued it was a tax. the solicitor general consumed only eight pages to address the subject and only at the end of his argue; when prompted by justice sotomayor, who said, general, can you please turn to the tax clause? justice ginsburg's containers -- and the four-justice descents eadvice rates the chief justices
analysis it was a tax. so in 14 page office the chief justice's opinion, full five of which is devoted to maining why, if it is a tacoma doesn't violate other direct tax provisions under the constitution. in short, for the far reaching and largely unlitigated conclusion, it pronounces that chief justice opinion has very little reasoning to back it up. i'll just skip ahead to what i thought was really summed this all up, because this decision came down about the same time a bunch of physicists in switzerland discovered something called the iggs bolton, and it occurred to me that the decision of the chief justice about whether this was nonnable as a tax is like the migs bolton. it's not clear what it is. you can't see it. it disappears as soon as it occurs. and it is called the god particle because it's the answer
to everything. [applause] >> ted in the spirit of collegiality i'll begin with the the one point you made that is accurate, and it's an important one, and a sobering one for those who supported the affordable care act, and who see the possibility of congressional powers to ameliorate any quality in america as an important -- and the court actually did invalidate the individual mandate. five justices held that the subsection a, which provides that every covered person shall have minimum health insurance coverage, but that is an exercise of the commerce power, which is invalid -- join the
other four conservatives on the point. in addition to the curbs on spending power, are two major points. now, for the rest of it, ted's facts could be better if you watch more than one news channel. >> msnbc is the only one we get in my home. >> the point is a trivial one but i'll respond. on abc this week with george stephanopoulos while the bill wag pending, isn't this a middle class tax increase the president said no. that is the sum total of the notion that obama went around denying this was a tax. i said the day before the decision came down, after hearing the argument on the tax
injunction act, the chief justice roberts fully understood there was nothing remarkable about this law constitutionally. nothing remarkable at all. and i think you've done a wonderful job of covering over the fact that it's sort of embarrassing this was seen as the end of liberty in the western world, when that was provided if you don't have adequate health insurance coverage you have to pay an additional 2-1/2% penalty with your federal income tax. this was an amendment to the internal revenue code. it provides if you don't have minimum health insurance coverage, you add 2 1/2%. you have to pay 7 1/2 percent for social security. you have to pay another percentage for medicare tax, to tear care for your health care after your 65, and if you don't have the alternative of private
health insurance, that is adequate, you have to pay an additional 2-1/2%. knock in the world is going to say the it's the end of liberty in the western world. that's all it ever was, and the one thing that was made clear to my great satisfaction, in the government filed brief, was that you're not in violation of the law if you do not comply, if you do not comply with the provisions that you have minimum insurance coverage. gloater in violation of the law. they said that in the brief. they said it in oral argument. as long as you choose the alternative of paying the 2-1/2% penalty. what is the big deal? we managed to extend health insurance coverage to an extraordinary number of americans who are without it and the imposition on the system was difference functional. the idea of a regulation of one/seventh of the national economy, hate it or loathe it,
that's not went the scope of the national got of government's regulations, regulatory -- a lot of things the federal does to encentavos behavior. incentivizes people for providing college education by giving you a tax break for funds set aside for a college education. it disinnocent vices having yellow ol'ow -- margarine -- >> you're running into problems in wisconsin. >> i know. so i think this is constitutionally completely unremarkable. and that you would strike down a legislative action of this magnitude, because of technical arguments. i think technically the chief justice did not give the better of the argument in the sense that subsection a says you have to maintain minimum coverage, subsection b says if you don't comply you have to pay 2-1/2%.
thought that was fully valid as a tax power, in it's nothing to tax, provision a, is -- >> you really got into this. >> i did. so i think stepping back from it, nobody descending in black helicopters and forcing people into their aetna insurance agency and forcing them to sign up for anything, it's an interesting question whether the government can force you. the court answers it in the negative. but can it provide a modest tax incentive? you don't have to buy health insurance if you don't want to. you justifies have to pay an additional 2-1/2%. they've may be a good idea or bad idea. it was always a republican idea, don't have single payer system. incentivize people to use the private market. that's what happens. it's a modest tax. to me it's unremarkable it was
upheld and people were historical about it being upheld, five counting ted. >> walter takes this a lot more seriously than i do. but you have 2-1/2 temperature -- what are the odds that will ever go up? >> well, -- i rest my case. >> that is a sign to which there are many people who are having the court -- this court is being more and more enmeshed in what are essentially decision office political policy and that's a policy choice. at some point, if you said, if it became so onerous that no one would pay the penalty and you were forced to buy insurance, then you would you have an argue. you're being coerced into something horrible, which is maintaining adequate insurance coverage and you would have a constitutional argument. as long as it's a choice, in fact it's perfectly racks until could pay the 2-1/2% baas health insurance is mostly --
>> i'm paying a lot more than 2-1/2 percent. >> i thought you were on medicare. >> now that we have reached agreement on that, we'll turn to some of the cases this term and we'll start with the same-sex marriage cases. i guess we should begin with a case that ted filed four years ago. i think when you first filed that case you knew it was likely toned up in the u.s. supreme court. what you may not have expected was that when it -- by the time it was at the court the state of california would no longer be defending the statute and wouldn't barret in the case and you might not have expected the defense of marriage act case would be argued the next day. now, how do those two developments affect? >> the supreme court, when it
granted review in these two cases, made the point of saying that it wanted to consider arguments and have briefing on the question of standing, articles standing, in both cases. in the proposition 8 case, which we're calling hop lingsworth burrs perry, which this case we brought -- you're right, four years other, may of 2009 -- the attorney general, the then-attorney general, and the governor of california, agreed with us that the challenge to proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment, which added to the california constitution a provision that said, only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in california. that was to overturn a california supreme court decision that had stricken down something called proposition 22 before that, which was a statute that basically said the same
thing. the california supreme court struck down proposition 22, and the family code provision that went with it; on the drownses that under california constitution, under the due process cause and equal protection clause of the california constitution, that was an invasion of right oses california citizens. that was in may of 2008. then proposition 8 was already in the works and was put on the ballot and enacted by the citizens of california, on november 5 of that year, which then changed the california constitution to eliminate that california supreme court decision in the interim, 18,000 same-sex couples got married in california. the first challenge was to whether or not proposition 8 was really a revision of the california constitution and had to do through the legislature-that california
supreme court said, no, no it's an amendment the constitution. so challenge -- a challenge to proposition 8 under the california constitution is not going to work bus it's an teamed the constitution -- an amendment to the constitution. so my clients, four individuals, two gay men and a lesbian couple, brought suit to challenge proposition 8 under the federal constitution, equal protection, due process clause, and filed suit in federal district court in san francisco. i could go on a long time about this but to get to the nuts of it right away. the governor and attorney general of california determined that in their view, proposition 8 was unconstitutional and they were going to enforce it as they were required to do under the law, they felt, but they were not going to defend it in court. so the proponents of proposition 8, who had put it on the ballot and had raised $40 million tote it passed in california -- intervened in the case. now, at that point the attorney
general and the governor were still parties to the case so it was a clear case of controversy. and the intervenors could biggy back on the standings of the actual parties. when the decision came do you -- we had a 12-day trial with evidence from experts and other individuals. the district judge found proposition 8 up constitutional on the grounds we had specified. at that point, neither the attorney general nor the governor decided to appeal to the nine circuit. so, they were no longer parties in the case as far as an appeal was corned'm the proponents did pez to the ninth circuit and claimed they had standing. we argued they didn't have standing they nor more than any other citizen who wanted to see this measure upheld in the courts. the ninth circuit lateraled it
to the california supreme court and said, what is the law in california? do proponents of a ballot proposition have standing to defend it on appeal where the state itself is not defending it? the california supreme court said, yes. they discovered something in the california constitution. i had not seen before. that under these ballot propositions, if the state does not defend them in court, then the proponents of the initiative have standing to maintain that case. so that is one of the issues in the proposition 8 case that we'll be arguing on march 26th walter will talk about the standing issue in the delmon case which is even more fascinating and will be argued the next day. i think most of you have heard the arguments about due process and equal protection. we filed our briefs on the merits last thursday, the 21st amicus briefs or our side will
be filed in february. the big mystery is whether the obama administration, which is not defending the domier case, which races a standing question, whether they will file an amicus brief, and if they do, what kind of arguments will they make. we'll find out on thursday inch the meantime there were 40 some amicus briefs filed on the side of our proopinion anyones in the proposition case, the perry case, and at least that men filed this thursday supporting our position in the case, including a "new york times" story this morning on the front page, former and president -- mostly former -- republican party office holders who signed up in supporting our nation the case, which is a bit of a man bites dog kind of a thing. and at least some people think that. and we all have a brief that so
far has over 60 major -- constituents from every state, corporations saying that proposition 8 should be struck down as unconstitutional, damaging to their employees, damaging to the work place, and that sort of thing. a lot of vary interesting amicus briefs filed. i hope that summary was short enough on the staning and merits of the proposition 8 case. >> at this event three years ago, i had something which is unfortunately rare for me and that is my mind was changed on an argument made by ted, at least my position was moved. it was the first time we had met before the attorneys general since ted and david had brought the california litigation. and i challenged ted by reading to him from justice david souter's final opinion as a
justice, and in a case that had to do with re-opening criminal convictions with new dna evidence, and inappropriate to that pope was a caution by suiter about when you should ask people to change their traditional ways of thinking. and the need to go slow, and the need to give people institutions, citizens, courts, time to adjust to a change. that a person is not a stick in the mud, he said, just because it takes someone time to get adjusted to new ways of thinking. i had fir identified this as a clear message in a bottle from justice david souter, a message that i read to be about gay marriage to go slow. some i read that to ted, and ted then began to tell me why he would not accept that
admonition. and he talked about his clients, and the fact that one of his couples, two women, had children who are in school and ted says the children told him they want their parents to be married by the time they graduate from high school. and ted said, i could not look them in the eye and say, you need to wait. and i thought in that moment that it was so powerful, and watching the reaction here, no matter what people's political persuasions were, they saw the power of that, and i think that moment at this event changed my thinking on it. one of the things that is quite dramatic about the movement in this -- some of you may have done the count -- there are 40 odd states that do not allow same-sex marriages. but in the brief supporting the proposition 8 side of the case,
only 20 states joined that brief, compared with the -- all the states that joined in the maryland vs. king, and it was noted there were some of the states that it did not join that brief when usually if a state law is at stake, they will. i still think it's worth making -- ted has, i think -- whatever the outcome of the case, think ted's advocacy has played major role in shaping views on this issue. whatever happens. in perry vs. hollingsworth and united states vs. winsor, i'm filing a brief on thursday on standing that takes the position that i have advocated in print, that the california marriage case was over, and that ted and gay marriage and his couples won when the state attorney general and governor declined to appeal
and the time to appeal ran. you may want to take a look at that because it dot have some implications for your role as attorneys general. the question whether the attorney general makes the decision to settle a case, not that it's -- applied challenge down the road, whether people have been proponented of a referendum have standing in court to raise constitutional issues. when they are not subject to control that -- you know, we can see -- concede that the state of california is a proper party, or would be if they chose to appeal. the issue is whether these four individualed, four of the five who were the proopinion anyones of prop 8 -- whether they actually can come in as the state of california. now, the california supreme court said they do represent california but i still believe strongly that that does not end the matter. there's the million article 3 -- a state can't simply say, that
on in particular statute, some states have said something like thing -- any citizen or person doing business in the state, represent the state's interests in court to enforce a particular statute. if a state did that across the board, two of the courts are not going to say we don't aloe museum to come in with generalized grievances who are not harmed by the provision in question. and that what california supreme court never said is that these people are agents. there's enough of the indicia of agents. there's no fiduciary responsibility to the state. they serve for life. they can't be removed. unlike said legislators who have been sometimes given standings to represent the state. they can be voted out of office and in one case they were. new jersey case. but if one -- if this case at any time resolve the issue -- and seven years from now someone
brings a challenge, married inned and irrational to prevent them from being married in california. you don't cut down the remaining proponents at some retirement home and give them the right to litigate on behalf of the state of california. the dead giveaway which will real estate nail with you attorneys general, at the end of the opinion they said there some issues we don't need to resolve. the question is, who will pay the attorney feees. if california loses and prop 8 is invalidate. i'm telling you, when you talk about david boies and ted olson, you're not talking small change. and off course if we don't have to resolve that. that makes no sense. if these proponents are there as the agents of the state of california, of course the state o california would be responsible for the attorneys fees, which i think approves the fact they're not agent office the state. and i don't think it's a hard
question they dope have an interest. they did have an interest in defending the package of prop 8, which they did successfully in the california supreme court against state constitutional challenges. this was a valid amendment in the state constitution and they accomplished that. this is an issue of federal constitutional law, where there -- i said, it's not that -- i don't think this is technical in this case. the reason why it's hard to find someone who has standing is it's hard to find someone who is injured. if there were finite number of marriage licenses available, so that gay couples meant that a married couple had to turn ours in -- [laughter] >> let's not speculate about how many will be turned in. >> for the cause, you know. in that case -- the simple matter is no one is injured by
someone else's happiness, and that's why i think it's hard to find someone standing -- ted has a lot of momentum going but the standing argument its one of first impression. in many respects. so i think its on whether the court wants to take a deep breath and wait for a more concrete case. let me say a word about the government case. the defense of marriage case is up and i think this is interesting to state attorneys general as well. this is, i think majors breach of federalism and the rights of the states. we have eight states -- nine, including d.c. >> nine of our jurisdictions have chosen to recognize marriage, and the federal government, which has more or less, with minor and separate exception, always recognized the state's central role in deciding who is married -- the federal government said we're not going to accept your marriage as valid for national purposes.
and this is serious because as long as this is the law, no one is truly married in their state if they're not eligible for 1,000 federal benefits, and you have a very dramatic case where you have edith winsor, she and her partner were a couple for 40 years. they got married in canada, moved to new york. when this fire dies she left her estate to edith winsor, to whom she had been married since 2007 in new york. and the federal government says, the state does -- estate does not pass the spouse because you cannot be a spouse in the law. so there's a huge tax bill that edith has to pay. the government is not going to pay that unless there's ordered to in a final jurisdiction so there really is article 3 case controversy here. the president decided that the
united states would not argue that doma is constitutional, and here's why i think that the is a legitimate decision for a president to make. ted and i have argued cases as solicitor general on behalf of the united states. we didn't work entirely enthusiastic about the argument. >> i remember one of two of those. >> but in this case, when it matter of first impression, whether to use heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation discrimination, that involved two questions that are not narrow questions of logic. they are not logic but experience. those questions are, has there been discrimination based on sexual orientation that continues to have an effect? and secondly, is this a criteria which is normally related to ability to contribute? and where you have discrimination and where the treatment for aids like mental
capacity is not relate teed the able to contribute, there's reason for heightened focus on the court. >> be careful before the age part. >> we're up here. we may northeast this. but that -- those are determinations where the president can say i believe there's continuing discrimination the i think the courts taught to take a hard look. there's something very -- that resonates with the other cases before the course. fisher, aaffirmative action case in fisher, the court is giving heightened scrutiny to claims brought by white students who want to be in the university of texas. so they ought to make the court feel comfortable that abigail fisher gets heightened scrutiny in her case, and properly so, but secondly, think.this. right now, think about what doma
does in those nine jurisdictions that recognize the -- that do not reincluded same-sex couples from being marriage that no longer ask in the those jurisdictions about gender. you show up, getture marriage license you name may be porter-jones, actual ashley johnson, your issued a marriage license, and normally if you apply for federal benefits, you show you have a marriage certificate. it opportunity say in the any of those state what is the jennifer is in either party. so under doman the federal government has to make some determination of who is what gender that is going accept the state's determination who is married. >> johnny cash had a song like that, boy named sue. >> i think the court is heading in the direction of saying that they're going to -- if not
invalidate -- very harsh scrutiny on any system of admissions that like requires the state to make a determination of race. everything about a person- -- who their grandparents were texas the navy, one was african, mother was a teacher, and think that enriches your class. if you how of the say we get five points if we officially determine your race. a court is going to say that's one thing we dent allow. and what d missouri a is going to require the federal government to do is to make an official determination about gender in order to invalidate a decision that has been made by a state to confer marriage status, which has been an area of central state for a couple hundred years. >> one more point about the windsor case, there's a challenge the standing. it is being defended by an organization called blag, which you could have thought they
could have called themselves something better than that, but -- like chilean sea bass or something like -- [laughter] >> it's a -- >> blag is a flakey white fish. >> it's a bipartisan committee of the house of representatives that are defending this, and there's a question about their standing, fashion the supreme court pointed a harvard professor to argue that, in...
think about standing there. >> we i would bet a lot of money they're not going hold. it three members of the house outvoting two members of the house have standing to litigate on behalf of the united. one of the points being made representing the bipartisan legal advisory group said if the justice department doesn't have standing because they agree with the standing below. my response is of course the justice probably doesn't have standing. the united states does. and the attorney general that represents the united and they have an interest. they say we have an interest in personal to $3 26,000. we have an interest in applying any statute that turns out to be constitutional. we have to give the court our honest opinion about whether
high end scrutiny should apply. we're going facility and urge the court to give full argument time not the usual amicus amount. the court will hear a full thirty minute argument. i will tell you if the affordable care act come before the the court and the romney administration i think it would have been appropriate for the solicitor general for taking the appeal, tell the court that in the government's view it's beyond the power of congress, that you're letting the democratic leadership have an amicus -- to argue for it. i adopt think it would have been anything wrong with the government and the rare case where you have a major policy decision and where i think the president is involved, i think when you don't defend a law at that level, the president needs to be involved as he was here. if the president says, i make a major -- constitutional policy judgment we don't want to defend
it or do, i think that's . >> in the -- the campaign finance case in 1976 a lot of campaign finance stuff going, the government filed three briefs. the federal election commission filed a brief, just the government why the justice department filed a brief, and there was a solicitor general's brief. and i always thought as solicitor general that was a crazy thing do. i promised the justices in the supreme court as long as i'm solicitor general you're on going to get one brief on behalf of the government. it gets to that sort of thing when there's a dispute within the government whether or not some law is constitutional or not. i guess we are standing a lot of time on standing. for geeks like this it will be fascinating. it will be interesting to the justices. >> let me add one point. i think it's critical to the
role of the court. in my view berry v. madison stands for the proposition that the the court has the authority out of all the institution and the the court have the -- law of the institution. for one reason only. they have a job to do. that job is resolving disputes between litigants who come in to court with a real lawsuit. and in carrying out that responsibility, they have to apply the law and the constitution is law. that was the key part. it's really law. in order do the job. because we have to declare the law of the institution we have to make up a case. i think that distorts what the proper role of the court is in
resolving dispute which is why it's important to decide whether there are litigants with the stake in the outcome. and today the supreme court decided five to four hotly contested decision that media groups and other groups challenging the surveillance under the foreign surveillance act of non-u.s. citizens abroad saying we communicate with the people and some of our communications are going to be picked up on the warrants, and they want a decoration that the provision that allowed the program to go forward unconstitutional and the supreme court decided 5-4 it was not standing. it was too speculative to grant standing. very interesting. it's very current on their schedule. >> okay. let's tush to the other incredibly important case the court will hear on the
constitutionality -- they first passed the voting rights act. 47 years ago. a lot has changed for the better. is it still necessary? why do you think it's still necessary for 16 states that are fully or partially covered jurisdictions under section v have to go for the federal government before they can make a voting change? >> it is an enormous question, it's understandable that times have changed since 1965. i mean, in 1965 voting rights act may be the single most important act of the national congress. perhaps ever. and was strong medicine required in the setting aside all existing task they had in hand to washington, d.c., to before the laws can go in to effect. it is extraordinary.
it was actually the proposal that james madison made and fought for across the board. he thought all state laws should be submitted first to congress. she was truly a nationalist. this is a partial instannation of that. i think doubtful in that kind of very dramatic encouragement in what the court thinks of the sovereignty and the dignity of the states should be. it's become more routine for the jurisdictions do this. this is pretty good evidence that the government puts in the record of a continuing problem of legislation that or local acts ordinances, whatever the cancellation or waiting periods of early voting, et. cetera, that have in effect on voting that is disproportionate and racial impact. >> in all of those jurisdictions? >> here's the question. it's two question qbs you
justify the burden for anyone these days? and that is sort of revisiting the 1965 decision. i think probably the more serious question the one more hotly debated is what about the fact they didn't debate the coverage formula from 1974. they use the same coverage formula which was based upon voting statistic, registration, et. cetera from that period of time. and the attacks in the defense of the, quote out of decade formula, would be a graduate seminar in political science. it can well be that the better political science or methodology grade would go to those critique the formulas being too far off. the congress of the united states is not a graduate seminar in statistical methodology. the reason that there was a very strong enormously practical
political reason why congress didn't reopen and redo the coverage. it's easier for juries dirkses to accept the fact because you're covered because there was a history. everybody knows about the history. i live in one of the counties covered in north carolina. everybody knows about the history, it's not a present accusation that to use to the historic formula. and reopen it and decide today who are the worst discriminators of would have crarned the whole project. history has the claim. we in the south now have civil rights tours, the idea that you're coffered because that's part of your history and to redo it to make it better and refine it so that one or more justices -- seems to me awfully school marmish of the the court in the relationship to the congress of the united states who is made it
a political judgment that you set up -- i think the way to defend it is to say, rook, the default is we're going use the historic formula we always used because, you know, we have an acceptance pattern. we have a bail in for jurisdictions that can be added because they are found to be discriminating and we have an opt-out which they were easier it would be -- if but if you start with a default with the opt and opt out it was the best political solution. to me the best defense is that doubter shouldn't be getting any to the business of micromanaging what is really a large basic fundamental decision of the best political way to resolve the problem going forward. >> well, no, this is going to be argued tomorrow. right? >> that's correct. 10:00 a.m. >> the last time before the court was a couple of years ago in the northwest austin case. do i have it right? >> yes.
>> and the supreme court sounded from the argument, i think was there like they were going toss out section v and then at the last minute, the last day of the term, they rendered this decision or posted the last day in which they ducked the issue, about chief justice wrote the opinion ducking this very question, and found a way around it by screwing the statute in a way that was a bit of a stretch. he ducked the question. the question is why was it ducked then when it sounded like they were going to face up to it as a result what you heard during the oral argument. maybe there was one vote that slipped away or something like that. you never know about them. in the chief justice's opinion, he taunts the -- talks about the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. nay -- that may or may not be something that comets back with respect to this. it's the underlying question.
of course states get treated differently under the commerce clause. there are floods here and dry here, and there are all sorts of reasons. from a political standpoint to pick out certain states and propose a continuing badge of wrongness, discrimination other and forever because it's not politically easy to change it or it's not political my easy for the court to get in to that. it raises the question of equal sovereignty. i came up with the same principle in connection with with the case i'm handling involving something congressional statute that prohibits states from prohibiting sports gambling. you probably know about this. what that statute does, not only does it put the burden on the state to regulate something that the federal government has chuten not to regulate by putting the burden on the state raises a tenth amendment issue.
it has an exception for couple of states. has an exception for nevada. and the question, is should michigan be the only place where cars are made? should nevada be the only place where you can bet on the outcome of a super bowl? and is that discrimination against the state? i'm not trying to answer this, although i'm an advocate on one side of the issue or not. it's an important issue here to agree to which congress can pick up certain states for more favorable or less favorable treatment not connected with actual geographic facts on the ground that justify the discrimination. >> okay. why don't we take a quick detour to criminal law. earlier this morning probably the most criminal law issue of the term was argued by maryland chief deputy kay winfrey. the case is maryland c v.
king. when a state takes a dna sample a cheek swab from people arrested but not yet convicted. ted i know you've been involved a little bit. >> a little bit. i filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of individuals in the field and feel that maryland is right that maryland have this and states have the ability. if you arrest someone, none of you have been arrested ever. but you probably heard about people having been arrested and having to submit to their fingerprints and things like that. well, the argument in the defense of the dna statute is that this is a way of identification. it records what happened when you were arrested much more elaborately than anything in the fingerprints do, but it's not connected with the -- the personal was arrested for assault, and the dna was taken not because the need to connect
the dna or his identity with the assault, i think it was clear that he did the act, whenever he was charged with. it was used to identify him in connection with with a sexual assault or a sexual crime of some sort that had taken place some years before. he was arrested and convicted of that. he was saying it was a violation of the 4th amendment. you don't have a reasonable basis without a warrant to take that afghanistan from me. it's infry'sive. and -- intrusive and it requires a swab. i think there are other ways of doing it. it was argued today and dan, you were getting a report, matt cain you'll report on it. i don't know how it's going come out. i thought the state had the better of the argument. where it's interesting, it seems to me, we talked about it last year or at least in another forum, we talked about the gps device that was attached to the drug dealer's car here in washington, d.c., and there was
a warrant at first. but the warrant expired and the tracking of the alleged drug dealer, which the alleged drug dealer on trial for the third time last month. >> i know. >> this guy . >> i represent him. [laughter] >> so far they help -- walter helped keep him out of jail. [laughter] the interesting thing about this and the supreme court decided 9-0 to overturn the search in that the search in that case, but justice saw it as a tremendous pass. they attached the device to the guy's car. and justice scalia said that doesn't work. you can't imagine the different ways in which the science is keeping up. so you to a reasonable expectations of privacy. that's going work. and it brings to bear the all of the technology that we have now,
and none of which was even imagined in the wildest dreams not even by jewelses or anyone a long time ago when the fourth amendment was put in to place. we have the heat sensing devices that can tell whether you're growing something that you shouldn't be growing in a house. you have going through the toll boothe that tracks every move you make on the highway. you have a cell phone thing that tells where you are. you have cameras in the state to record red light violaters and speeding. we have all of these technologies now that is challenging the conventional wisdom with respect to the fourth amendment. and it's creating some fascinating law. and the justices are struggling with it. it's town talk about it. >> in the gps case, i was involve in from last term, the maryland case and the two cases from florida the canine state known as.
looking at the two florida cases, in this context is quite revealing. the first case -- the first in the florida cases involved the dog that, you know, in a traffic stop the police were entitled to make. the dog signals and alerts to the car twice and it's wrong both times. there's no contraband of the kind the dog is trained aldo is trained to. >> maibt guy was rolling in it. they found other things the dog is not trained to alert in. >> tennis balls. [laughter] >> but of course, that doesn't mean you don't have probably cause just because you may well have probable cause to search for a gun and nongambling
paraphernalia. what is interesting the florida supreme court because of the two faults and the fact that no record was kept by all aldo's handlers of aldo's false positives and negatives. know will be rate record was kept it run it automatically throughout the search. the the court rejected the 90 that said the opinion for the florida supreme court --. >> had the dog had a great name. >> aldo. a-l-d-o. aldo wins. >> frankie is in more trouble. if the florida supreme court didn't reply point search and procedure -- i think the states have been lucky that the state supreme courts that have the split and approach with u.s. supreme court don't rely upon
the own state institution. florida has something that has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be cointreaud in conformity with the fourth amendment of the united states constitution as interpreted by the united states supreme court. let me with the answer in the supreme court. i wouldn't be surprised if at some point states decided to ens late the supreme court review. i'm surprised, you know, that -- now what is really interesting is the oral argument in the other florida case. right. greg did a terrific job arguing for the state of florida. the the court was hosting unlike the 9-0 approval of the police activities in aldo's case, it came down. l oral argument showed extraordinary hostility that the police officer goes up to the door of the house with a dog. no reasonable suspicious or
probable cause or anything. goes up to the house and the dog is trained to sniff and the dog alerts to drugs inside the house. and the court is really angry about this. >> what was the dog's name? >> franky. >> franky. >> and -- the first or something. >> frankie -- and what is interesting about it is -- it's hard for the justices across the board, it's brier, scalia, they don't have a good theory for this. there's no no trespassing sign. anybody can walk to the door if you're selling cookies or going door to door for the canvas. you're free to walk up to the door. you're probably free to have a dog with you. there's a sign with no dogs allowed. if it did this would say this is
a grow's house. it's understandable the one house on the block said no drug sniffing dogs allowed. [laughter] they were searching for a doctrine, i think that's because as in jones the court can perceive the own interest they can imagine being in a position. a reporter showed up at chief justice's warn's house to ask breaking question and berger came down in the bathrobe and the shotgun. they can see coming to the front door of the house. it's like in jones, because the trial counsel was arguing for jones, we had done the briefing with steve l.a. car. i felt more argument doing preargument interviews. i ended the interview by saying, the position is upheld any law enforcement officers on the greater scenario can put a detection twice on the underside of the car of any justice of the
supreme court for any reason whatsoever. or no reason at paul. -- at all. or they want to know where they go. i knew they would use the clip. she did. michael gets up to argue for the united states and say may it please and they said, wait, before you go. is it your position that any officers placed a -- of the justices and michael, we learned two things. the chief justice listens to npr on the way to work. we learned that the excellent advocate does not. [laughter] he said justices of this court. and he said, yes, justices of this court. and he said, well, there's no expectations of privacy. so the answer is yes. the answer is yes. case was over. [laughter] that the point i turned to my counsel and said, be cautious
when in your argument. we are hope free on this one. [laughter] i think there's something in the cases about whether the justices can perceive themselves or almost have em pa everyone think with the situation. drug dealing on the street corner or inspect the alley where they are unlikely to be. he found a new way to use a amicus brief. length of time. >> that's why these cases are interesting at this juncture. my impression they heard quickly about the argument ties with something that has been said which is cases are becoming harder for the government. and justice scalia hasn't been a regular friend for the government and the fourth amendment cases. as shown in the jones case he was with the majority in a recent case with the government
lost 6-3 in a fourth amendment case. i gather he was giving maryland a hard time today. it's going to be a close case. it could be that the state and government prevails. it could pick up justice ginsburg. and i think may by getting it roughly right. and we'll see. i think it connects both to concern about -- well, i don't think think expect to be arrested. but i think in connection with to the high-tech concern they are well in concern of what is going to be done with the dna information or bringing the high-tech devices. >> the state of maryland did an excellent job in the case, but also i looked amicus brief. it was an brief. when you read the briefing in this, the case for having a
larger dna data bank is so powerful. we put it -- we have -- within our power to eliminate rape. at least the largest category of rape. we eliminate it. we're not going to choose to do that. it's our choice. had f you had relatively universal dna you would in 24 hours be able to amp end anyone who engaged in rape or see seaman can be tested. we are making a choice about how effective we want to be able to respond they realize a choice and the fact in the case and i think the briefing you did for the forensic people that use it to counter rape makes the case very powerfully for how what an important law enforcement tool it is. i was persuaded by the briefings. that was the way to answer.
>> don't other side, of course made the argument, sure. you can have really effective law enforcement devices if you have cameras everywhere. they are on all the time and blay, blay, blay. so that's they're concerned about, and there might be demographic involved in that. it's a younger court than it was six or seven years ago. it's still not really young people on the court or more familiar with all of the electronic device and all of the things that all of our grander children know about. it's computer cases, patent cases and stuff like that, they have a little bit of time struggling with that. it's a different era. >> from florida -- and frankie it's just a dog. he's using the smelling capacity of the dog. there's nothing new here. >> the technology cases it's very familiar.
>> you have to be able to treat teach police officers to smell as good as dogs. [laughter] , i mean, to sniff as good as dogs. [laughter] there are many more cases that i would want to discuss with walter and ted. unfortunately we are at the end of our time. please welcome -- you have to understand that all of the founders, the primary concern number one, was with national security. so what would they say, for example, about a company such as lockheed? i'm of the opinion that based on how they acted in other instances, they would have grudgingly faired a bailout of lockheed because it supplied the united states at the time with the top fighter jets and the top reconnaissance. i think you can make an argument they would have supported, for example, the bailout of chrysler
back in the 1980s but not the bailout of chrysler today. what was the difference? chrysler back then made tanks. they made the m1a1, frank. they were our only tank manufacturer and it's interesting when chrysler comes out -- [inaudible] and repace the government loan and comes back to help, the main way they do so by silling off the tank division and piling that money back in to the company. >> author and university of dayton will take your calms, e-mails, facebook posts and tweets on the founding fathers. live sunday at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. glmpleght the president was at the shipbuilding facility in new port virginia to talk about the automatic budget cuts set to go in to effect on friday. here is part of the remarks.
i've got to give scott credit, you know, he's one of your republican congressman who is with us here today. that's not always healthy for a republican being with me. but the reason he's doing it because he knows it's important to you. and he's asked the colleagues in the house to consider closing tax loopholes instead of letting these automatic cut goes through. he's concerned about the deficit and he's more than prepared to make some tough cuts. he wants to do it in a smart way. bobby scott, some of the same thing. some of the cuts we proposed bobby might not think they are perfect. he knows we have to make tough decisions. he wants to make sure you're not the ones adverse i are impacted. and we're sharing the sacrifice in bringing down the deficit. we're not dumping it on a few people or in a dumb way.
senators like john mccain had similar statements. you're a republican governor along with governors around the country said they want congress to stop the sequesters to stop the cuts. but i just have to be honest. there are too many republicans in congress right now who comprise an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes especially the tax breaks. that's what is holding things up right now. keep in mind nobody is asking them to raise income tax rates. we are asking them to consider closing tax law school hope and -- loophole and deductions that the speaker was willing to do. he said there was a bunch of loophole and deduction you can close. you can raise $800 billion by closing loopholes. we're not even asking for that much. all we're asking is that they close loopholes for the well off
and the well -- for hedge fund managers for oil companies or corporate jet owners. who are doing very well and don't need the tax loophole so we can avoid laying off workers or kicking the can downtown road or reducing financial aid for college students. i don't think it's too too much to ask. i don't think it's partisan, the majority of the american people agree with me. the majority of the new port agrees with me. we need to get it done. [applause] but the choice is up to congress. only congress has the power to pass a law that stops these damaging cuts and replaces them with smart savings and tax reform. and the second i get that bill on my desk, i will sign it in to law. i have got get congress to pass it. none of us will get 100% of what
we want. democrats, they have got, you know, make tough choices too. democrats like me, we said we're prepared to make tough cuts and reforms including the programs like medicare. but if we're willing to compromise then republicans in the house have to comprise as well. that's what democracy is about. that's what the country needs right now. house speaker john boehner commented on the sequester calling on the senate and the president to act. the president has known for 16 months that this sequester was looming out there. when the super committee failed to come to an agreement. so for sixteen months the travel has been traveling all over the country holding rallies instead of sitting down with senate leaders in order forge an agreement over there in order to
move the bill. we have moved the bill twice. we should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off the arizona and begins to do something. >> pentagon spokesman george little talked about how sequestration would affect the defense budget. glmpleght first, as you know, the sequestration goes in to effect for the remain of the year. it will require that the department of defense to cut roughly $46 billion from the level of funding provided on the 2013 continuing resolution. all of the last seven months of the fiscal year. by law, sequester would apply to all of the dod budget. including wartime spending. the only exception is that the president has indicated his intend to -- personnel funding from sequestration. dod leaders support the decision, it does not mean that other budget accounts will be cut by larger amounts to offset the exemption.
accounted by account item by item. cuts to the operating portion of the dod budget must be equal in percentage at the let of appropriations accounts. for example, army active operation maintenance, navy reserve operation and maintenance, and air force guard. for the investment the dollars cut must be allocated. that means more than 2500 programs or projects that separately identified need to be reduced by the same percentage. with -- could decide how best to allocate the reduction for the department leaders to be deprived. by protecting high priertdty investment programs in favor of others. the fact we are operating under a continuing resolution is adding to the fiscal
difficulties facing this department and the current fiscal year. while the cr provides a right level of overall funding for dod the dollars are in the wrong appropriations accounts. and sequester hits the department the result will be a huge shortfall in operations and maintenance accounts for active forces. across dod, we will be 20% of total requirements for operating funds the percentage closer to ho% for the united states army. it means that the army will have to cut training leaving most of the nonemployed below acceptable readiness standards. the same is true for air force combat units. the navy and marine corps. will have to slash readiness. as you know the navy recently
elected to reduce a number of carriers deploy to the gulf in order to avoid the risk of being short that it cannot deploy any carriers during the future period. the perspective of the cuts lead the chairman, the vice chairman, and all of the joint chiefs to recently sign a 28-star letter stating, and i quote, the readiness of our armed forces at the tipping point. we are on a bring of creating a hallow force. the department leaders are working every day to avoid the worse effect of the situation. and we will continue to do so. but the solution to this self-made crisis can't be found in this building. this solution is congress passing a balanced deficit reduction package and appropriations bills -- [inaudible] and detrigger sequestration. our department's leaders have responsibility to continue to make that case to congressional
leadership and to the american people. now a house hearing on how sequestration will affect the defense budget. how appropriations committee chairman harrold rogers spoke in favor of a spending bill that would fund the defense department for the reminder of the fiscal year. military leaders also testify about the effects of the sequester set to take place friday that cuts $46 billion from the pentagon fiscal 2013 budget. it's just under three hours. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. i want to say first -- dealing with national security, i continue to be tremendously impressed with the leadership of america's military. and you represent that
leadership and i can tell you it's exciting to be in the room with all of you. you have in your predecessors and have built a tremendous national security program. we're trying to keep it like that. we're trying to make sure that our readiness stays high and our troops are well taken care of. that that have whatever equipment they need. whatever training they need to do the mission that they're called on to perform. so this is really great to be with you today. i intended insure the hearing when we first invited you to come to go a different direction where are we going to be five years from now, ten years from now? a modern equipment, i think time
has overtaken our issues today because we find ourselves with the sequestration that is upon us. it's either going happen or it's not. there's not much time left to fix it. one thing that appropriators must do has to do with a continuing resolution should be extended for a balance of fiscal year could cause a lot of damage to the readiness, the training, preparation to our troops. and so i think that is going the direction of our hearing today. and i want to -- for the audience, introduce from the army and general raymond
odierno. admiral jonathan greener. marine cam daunt james. air force chief marc welsh. and the national guard bureau who sit with the chiefs -- general frank grass. so thank you for being here. and before i yield -- i want for any opening statement. >> thank you i appreciate your mentioning the continuing resolution. unfortunately people are very focused today on sequestration. which is a fundamental problem. but the fact is that we are today governing this country by looking backwards. i joined the chairman in welcoming the five gentlemen before us. i deeply appreciate your time,
your commitment, and your service. we look forward to also hearing of your expertise. mr. chairman, i have a longer opening statement, but will simply cob collude by -- conclude by saying that i'm appalled that alls of us are meeting here today and not having hearing on the 2014 budget and the incredible amount of time. that you have had to waste dealing dealing with these issues that the chairman, the members of the committee, the staff has had to waste dealing with this issue. it's a complete abdication of congregational responsibility to be a check and balance and make financial discussions -- decision. i regret congress no longer legislatives but a-- again, i
deeply appreciate you bringing us together today to resolve the issues before us and would yield back my time. >> thank you very much. i'm going ask you to hold. he has a meeting with the speaker and the leadership to understand the importance of not carrying forward on another six months. if that's okay with you, roberts has been working hard on putting this together. it's a way to solve some of the problems. mr. rogers. >> thank you very much for holding the hearing, mr.
chairman. and also for the recognition to allow me to go before the witnesses speak. so first of all, good morning, and welcome to the committee. this hearing is critically important. this week our national defense will face serious and dangerous sequestration cuts as well as potentially damaging constraints if the currents dod funding structure is simply extended for the remain of the fiscal year. twin threats, first the cr, which will hit on the 27th of next month, and then, of course, sequestration. but today i want focus your attention, if you will, on the cr, and what you need for their balance of this year whether it's a day change only cr, or
whether it's incorporating the bill, the defense bill, and the v. 8 bill that passed the house overwhelmingly. and was agreed to by the senate bipartisan agreement. and we want to try to substitute those two bills in to the cr for the balance of the year, which would give you a lot more flexibility than you now have. it's not within this committee's power to solve sequestration at this time. it is within our jurisdiction to try and help loosen the change and allow the department to some funding flexibility in order to dot best with what it has. to this end, two weeks ago as the chairman said, i proposed a plan to craft a continuing resolution for the entire government that would include a full year of defense appropriations bill. these two individual bills, as i
said, has bipartisan support. they were conferenced with our democrat and republican counter parts in the senate, they have been completed in laying there since last december. if enacted, this package will avoid a government shut down while prioritizing dod and veterans and ensuring some much needed funding flexibility in what you do. being able to move monies around from different accounts whether it's absolutely imperative that you do that, and also saving a lot of money, i believe. i know, that the chairman young shares this goal, i applaud his leadership on this subcommittee, and unwavering support for the people in missions of support of our military. it's crucial that the committee receive the best information possible regarding dod's funding challenges under both
sequestration and the cr. and we want to hear that directly from you. and i want to welcome each of you to this room. for several of you, this is your first time testifying before this subcommittee. we look forward to hearing directly from you. hopefully, now unshackled from omb's gag hold. i don't have to tell you that the mens of the subcommittee know you come representing thousand of our refined service men and women and their families. we must begin by acknowledging their service, dedication, and sacrifice to the country that we live in and we reaffirm our commitment to providing twhem a tools, training and support necessary to carry out vital and support missions throughout the world. it's understood that yilg of responsibility that our nation and government face
unprecedented fiscal challenges particularly for the department of defense. like many of my colleagues, i believe sequestration is both terrible politics and terrible policy. it will have a -- devastating affect on porn praments and -- programses and services. and defense capability. the president's sequestration approach represents a haphazard negligent approach to governing. leadership is about making choices tough choices. sequestration is about not making choices. i had hoped our commander in chief would have put forward an acceptable alternative to the
near-term disaster but we're still awaiting it. last year the house voted twice to resist these across the board cuts only to have the white house criticize and disparage. these cuts will gravely impair the defense department's mission capabilities, troop training, equipment and supply lines, research and development efforts, and our overall readiness. today it's my hope that we can have ab honest and open dialogue to discuss the very real impacts of the pending sequestration exactly where cuts will occurring with and the forced steps the military is taking to mitigate these effects. no question cuts can't be made to nearly each and every department. but this approach will certainly lead to more costs, not less, and less 21st century security
not more. secondly, the department of defense is wrestling with the possibility of a year-long continuing resolution. as i said before, final decisions have not been made. i'm proposing to include both the completed defense and veterans and conference reports in a cr agreement for the balance of the government for the balance of the year. in order to protect critical functions of our defense and help ensure our country's safety in the uncertain times. this proposal would also have the benefit of saving billions of taxpayer dollars. under a change cr extension, without these bills attached billions in potential savings would be lost or unnecessarily wasted. for example, savings from closing out programs that have exceeded their usefulness will
not be realized, new multiyear procurement which save both time and money would not be permitted, and program delays or disruptions for hundreds of programs will result in price increases. i think it's clear that this nation is facing some hard choices. it's up to congress to pave the way for our financial future. it's up to the committee to do what we can in the short term to make the most of a difficult situation. that's one reason why it's essential we hear what you have to say today. and i want to encourage you to be as frank as you can. these are frank times. the deadline is upon us. decisions will be made in hours on the future of the country. and so i urge you member of expertise and leadership, people
who are used to making decisions to let us know the basic facts so we can make the right decision with you. so mr. chairman, on to the business at hand, i know this is slightly unorthodox, but i do have to leave shortly. i can stay for some time. but i want to be sure that we get the answer to the following question from each of you: yes or no? would you say that it's critical that congress pass a full year defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2013? so when it comes time for the answer, purchase, i would hope that we can hear -- could i even ask for a, you know, hand right now? >> that's find. it's your time. [laughter] >> let me ask the question
then. generals? >> yes chairman? >> yes, chairman. >>. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> you're saying to me it's critical to the nation's defense that we pass the cr with a house and senate passed appropriations bill for dod mill con veterans is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. i'll be able to carry this conversation we have just had in to the meeting with leadership in a few minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for the effort that you have made to put this package together because, you know, we have been trying to get the defense bill on the floor for finally consideration for a long time. and the distinguished ranking member on the full committee has joined with us.
and i'm glad to yield to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to say to chairman rogers, who i know believes in regular order. if we can sit down, just a couple of us, we can work something out and come up with a fair solution. and i'm glad to see you shake your head on that one. i wish we could do it that way. and it's an honor for me to be here today. i would like to thank chairman young and ranking members and the member of the subcommittee for holding the hearing today. the topic is certainly timely, and we're just three days left until sequestration occurs. congress needs to work together to avoid across the board cuts, which risk our economic recovery and national security! if it would help, i would say it again. i think it's essential that we avoid this disastrous proposal.
excluding sequestration in the last two years, congress has reduced discretionary spending by more than $1.5 trillion. and now even after we have made such deep reductions, that discretionary spending is on a path to be at the lowest percentage of dgp in the -- gdp in the last forty five years. we face additional cuts through sequestration. the priorities of the appropriation committee from national defense to education to biomedical research cannot absorb a below. i don't believe anybody on the committee wants across the board cuts. we are approaching the march 1st deadline, congress could prevent $85 billion in cuts from occurring by passing a balanced
approach, a balanced approach, this week that closes tax loopholes, trim entitlements and minimizes growth in future spending. as we listen to the testimony from our distinguished witnesses on the grave impact on each service, we should also keep in mind the overall economic impact. cbo projections sequestration will cut economic growth in 2013 by one-third. cut economic growth by one-third! a study from george mason university projects a loss of $2.14 million jobs. our economy is recovering. now it not the time to absorb an additional $85 billion in cuts for the department of defense and all other departments and agencies, the effect of sequestration could compounded
by the effect of a continuing resolution that does not update budget priorities. our soldiers sold, sailors, airmen, and marines can be called on any time any day to call on our nation. we have a responsibility together to set aside our differences and provide them with the resources they need. i would also like to take a moment to commend general on the response of the guard during super storm sandy. we're appreciative. the new york national guard deployed approximately 4,000 soldiers to assist first responders with the equipment, supplies, search and rescue, and cleanup efforts. due to sequestration, new york alone is looking at a furlough of 12,000 defense employees and
a reduction of $108 million to army-based operations. this could certainly impact the guard's ability to maintain a top-notch force. again, i look forward to the testimony from our witnesses, and i don't think we should lose sight of our shared goal working together in a bipartisan way for the future of our country, for the strength of our economy. we must prevent sequestration. i yield back. thank you. >> thank you very much for your statement. thank you very much for being here. and i think you know very well that this subcommittee has always approached the responsibilities in a very, very nonpolitical way. and so we appreciate your statement on. we're going go to the regular order now. and i would invite to make any
opening statements you would like to make. respond to chairman rogers. we are here to hear from you. because it's certainly that you and your forces have what is needed to keep this nation strong. >> thank you, mr. chairman young, chairman rogers, ranking members with the rest of the committee. thank you for allowing us to be here for the important discussion. nearly 18 months ago, i was asked and charged to be the chief of staff for the army to run the army. and asked to provide my best military advice. ly do that today as we discuss this complex issue. i've had the opportunity over the last several years to command at every level in combat, division corp. and theater level. i know, what it takes to ensure that our sons and repair for war. i know, what it takes to do you
leaders in the army. i know, what is required to send soldiers to combat. i have seen firsthand the consequences when they sent unprepared. i began my career in the '70s. i am determined i will not end my career in a hollow army like i started. every day events across the globe remind us that we live in a unpredictable security landscape i have experienced in my career. unlike post conflict drawdown in the past, we conot see any peace and stability and dividend in our future. ..
we owe it to dan and the american people to ensure that our soldiers are ready and when we asked them to respond to the next crisis, the next natural disaster, that is her church to ensure they are ready to respond. in my opinion, the greatest threat is a fiscal uncertainty resulting from the lack of predict ability and our budget cycle over the last several years. in addition to the 170 billion cuts to the army that the data budget control act of 2011, the combination of the continuing resolution, a contingency
operation funds for afghanistan and sequestered in fiscal year 13 has resulted in an $18 billion shortfall to the army's operation accounts as well as an additional $6 billion cut to all the programs. all of this will come in the last seven events at this year. our top priority is to ensure forces and afghan tin and korea have resources required to execute their missions. these cuts will have grave consequences on the readiness of the remaining forces. we will curtail training for 80% of ground forces. this will impact the basic war fighting skills and the shortfalls of cross critical specialties including aviation, intelligence, engineering to recruit new soldiers into the army. sequestration will impact the ability to trained soldiers in afghanistan in 2014 and will
have significant long-term impacts on u.s. special operations command and ability to support special operations. we have directed a hiring freeze and terminated employees. we will further up to 251,000 civilians for 22 days. the army provides 40% of all dod surveilling military medical services of our valued employees representing as much as 60% of the army's work for a set of medical treatment facilities, three tennis at its sister services plus they will have degraded access to medical care. they were an estimated 5000 employees and significant delay equipment readiness for six divisions an estimated
3.36 billion packed for communities surrounding outposts. implemented over 10,000 employees could be affect next year. on our installation in civilian furloughs come a 70% reduction as a statement fun in an elimination of contracts will strain our ability to protect your army family programs. he sequestration is implemented, we'll be forced to reduce spending for schools, day care centers, family assistance and community service programs, family and substance abuse counselors and assistance for soldiers. for fiscal year 14 and beyond from a sequestration will result in the last of an additional 100,000 personnel soldiers for act to bar may come in the army national guard and u.s. army reserve. combined with previous cuts already approved a missile result in a total reduction of 189,000 personnel from the army
but will probably end up being higher than that, closer to 200,000. a reduction of 14% will equate to almost 40% reduction in our brigade combat teams and access u.s.-based installation infrastructure. sequestration will result in delays to everyone apart 10 major modernization programs. since 2008 the total army budget will have them reduced by over 45%. the sequestration enacted will be greater than 50%. that is the number following any war we've been involved with since world war ii. in my opinion from a sequestration is not in the best interest of our national security on the placement rates will burden on the shoulders of soldiers and civilians. we will not execute and are compromising future readiness of the short course, army and
ability to provide security of our nation today. i understand the seriousness of our countries fiscal situation. we will continue to do our part but we cannot take the readiness of our force for granted. if we do not have resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers are the ones who will pay the price potentially with their lives. it is the responsibility, department of defense and congress to ensure we never send soldiers into harm say that are not trained, equipped and ready for any contingencies to include war. what a mess up with a better solution. i will just add over the last week was done detailed analysis of how we would implement the $18 billion shortfall in 13 from which includes $6 billion in continuing resolution, about five to $7 billion in shortfalls for afghanistan and 6 billion
for sequestration. all those things i just mentioned are still 4-dollar short. so there will be more at things who have to do that we are still trying to figure out. so this is very serious i may ask your assistance to include flexibility that would help us eliminate the $6 billion shortfall in the continuing resolution signet and for the army to solve one third of the problem we have today. thank you for allowing me to testify, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, thank you for a powerful statement. i want you to know we are pushing hard to break through some of the walls we have to break through because we agree in me understand what you're telling us. one of the purposes of this hearing is made a point as often
as we can for those in higher appointees that can pay attention to what you're telling us. thank you very much, sir. admiral greenert, with a two-year your view on this navy operations. >> good morning chairman rogers commemorates a member lauri and ranking member viclosky, distinguished members, i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and have a discussion with you today. when i last appeared before you, i declare there were two important qualities of our naval forces that we will operate forward at the maritime press service the world where it matters and will be ready when it matters. your navy and marine corps are uniquely qualified to respond immediately to crises to assure allies and build partnerships and deter aggression.
these qualities and values are at risk of the fiscal uncertainty we now face. our near-term concern is degraded current readiness caused by a combination of sequestration and the lack of appropriations bill in fiscal year 2013. this is not just a 2013 phenomenon. without congressional action is going to have an irreversible and debilitating impact on our navy, your navy's readiness for the rest of the decade as he spoke to earlier, chairman. will not respond the way the nation answers acted and depended on us to make that decision consciously and deliberately. pre-symbolic but not all-inclusive examples of this impact are the delays of the deployment of the carrier strike group harry truman, delay in the over fall and the delay in the initial construction of the carrier john f. kennedy. these are just carriers, but
impacts ops, neatness and construction off the bat. these represent decisions over the coming weeks i will not come without significant consequences to our people, the defense industry and the local economies. b. $.6 billion shortfall that confronts us interop rations and made this account has compelled us to cancel ship and aircraft maintenance, reduced operations, it will soon deploy and notify a possible furlough. forces are currently deployed, but we will have inadequate search capacity at the appropriate readiness level where it matters and when it matters. we need an appropriate bill that will allow the department to distribute in a deliberate manner. if a year-long continuing
resolution is inevitable or the result, we got to meet means to reallocate to provide funding for the most critical operations. delayed reallocation of resources results in a reversible actions such as ship and aircraft maintenance and such as training cancellations. we thought $600 million in february because of irreversible lost opportunities and through the month of march if we don't have that opportunity to reallocate funds, it will be another 1.2 billion that continues to grow and cascade is to go through the summer. mr. chairman, this committee is dedicated to the men and women of military and families, but our folks are stressed by the uncertainty about jobs, operational schedules and more importantly their future. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and have a discussion on their behalf and as chairman rogers said, i'm proud to
represent these dedicated people and their sacrifice. thank you for your efforts and not of this body to avert this readiness crisis. >> admiral, thank you for the very important statement and we have met with the law phenomenon that very issue of having these assets that all the other services really need. so thank you very much. general amos, very anxious to hear from marine corps, sir. >> charming young, ranking member viclosky, chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, thank you for the opportunity to appear to discuss impacts of continuing resolution and sequestration on your marine corps. i'm struck a safe day care who represent over 180 years of service to our nation in defense of our nation. we take that responsibility seriously as you do in yourutraa
magnitude, timing and methodology by the devastating impact on our nation's readiness both short-term and long-term. combined with the effects of the existing continuing resolution, sequestration creates unacceptable levels of risk in four main areas. first come the risk to our national strategy. second, risk to our forces. third, restore people and lastly, risk to the united states of america. maintaining a sound international economic system and a just international order of our nation's defensive strategic guidance. the effects of disruption to order can be seen in volatile energy prices fluctuating global markets unacceptable sovereign behavior and economic decline. failing to provide leadership in the collective security of this global order will have
significant economic consequences for the people of america. worse a fiscally driven laps in american leadership and engagement will create a void in which both this will be left unaddressed and new security challenges will no doubt find room to grow. there should be no misunderstanding. the combined effects of continuing resolution and sequestration will have a deleterious effect on stability of global order. perceptions of enemies and confidence of our allies you sequestration be solely as a budget issue would be a grave mistake. in fact, it would order a responsibility. while collective actions will be scrutinized on a global stage for even the perception of the nation's willingness to protect its global interests can and will have strategic consequences regarding risk to forces the linkage between resources and
readiness is immediate and visible. the scale and agnostic implementation of sequestration will have devastating impacts on readiness. sequestration while the ships in port, aircraft grounded for necessary maintenance and flying hours. modernization programs canceled and units only partially trained and reset after 12 long years of combat will be left unattended. because of our special role as america's cray sisters on force, race pace a high premium on readiness. i've done everything within my authorities to preserve a leading marine corps. i will continue to do so. under a continuing resolution only by strip and omega foundation of the long-term readiness of the forest. i'll short-term adaptations are possible, enduring effects is the future health and readiness of the force at risk.
by the beginning of next year by the 50% will be below acceptable levels for readiness for deployment for combat. any real sense we are eating our seed corn to feed current demands, living master plan for the long-term capabilities of the force. this pattern leads to a hollow words and syntax or other db installed under in the continuing resolution. the most troubling and immediate risks are those that sequestration imposes on her people. sequestration does not hurt things. it hurts people. a qualitative edge to the battlefield is the fundamental them teach that differentiates our forces have enemies. this qualitative combat it should be severely eroded by impacts of sequestration, leaving america's men and women with training, degraded equipment and reduced
survivability. the quality of life for the all volunteer force and their families will inevitably suffer as we reduce family programs and installation maintenance. our civilian marines will likewise be impacted. 95% of civilian workforce is employed outside of the national capital region. they are the guards at our gates, financial experts who help build and manage budgets, acquisition specialists, therapist teacher blinded, experts or repair equipment and teachers who teach our children. the economic impact in local communities are put at risk by short-term furlough and long-term termination. protecting our ability to keep faith with families and wounded warriors is a top priority in my marine corps. but even then it's, the most sacred responsibility will be increasingly placed at risk under sequestration. in closing, allow me to articulate former risk, the risk
to our nations. in the final analysis, sequestration asks the most from those who appoint the greatest sacrifice. the effects of sequestration over the next 10 years will threaten the foundations of the all volunteer force, putting the nation's security on a vector potentially dangerous. it will dramatically shape perceptions of government as an employer and customer thereby reducing confidence throughout our institutions. these are strategic matters that demand immediate attention and i urge this committee to consider the full range of risk by this legislation and continuing resolution. i guess persistence and mitigating to the extent possible. thank you. >> general, thank you very much. your emphasis on the word risk is something you and i've talked about for quite some time. we've got to get rid of the risk
in the insurgency as it relates to our national defense and i can tell you having worked on this committee for a long, long time, we want to eliminate those risks. as i said earlier, we are trying to get our message through to what you are telling us today is helping with the effort to break the wall. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. member viclosky, all of us considered an honor should be here. chairman rogers for you, make a member lowey, thank you for the additional privilege of appearing before you. i like to add my thanks to this subcommittee and greater committee for the tremendous work be done in supporting military forces. you understand the context of the discussion, which is why we are happy to be here today. i agree everything you've heard already and won't belabor points
that have been made. sequestration will have an abrupt and alarming impact on people, readiness, infrastructure and modernization air force. person represents a $12.4 billion reduction in fiscal year 20 team. if it occurs it will significantly undermine your air force readiness and response today and significantly impact civilian workforce in the coming and its impact on modernization will affect her future capability. the arbitrary causal force an involuntary furlough for up to 180,000 darfur civilians and what that means to me is 31.5 million man-hours of lost work especially skills and expertise for the remainder of this fiscal year, not to mention the personal impact on individuals and families. it will result in loss of 200,000 flying hours. that doesn't mean a lot to people. let me explain what it means in operational terms.
who will protect afghanistan a contingency area for nuclear deterrence and flight training for roughly two thirds of our active-duty combat air force is will begin scaling down in march and will drop below acceptable readiness levels by mid-may and most will be completely non-mission capable as a unit by july. requiring six months to return to present training levels began not tober, assuming funny to do so. it will cut 30% of our weapon systems the same time, which means we'll postpone 150 aircraft and 85 engines from deco inductions creating a backlog that can take years to recover as you well know. strategic agility in response to require a high state of readiness from the air force, sacrificing jeopardizes strategic advantages of air power the nation enjoys. our ability to respond to multiple on current operations around the world, something we've been asked to do many
times in the past. longer-term, sequestration programs will impact everyone of them. distractions will cost the taxpayer dollars to rectify contract restructures, programming efficiencies, delayed delivery capabilities and more fighters in the field. the air force is long overdue following two decades of wars. in the terry includes aircraft in the 1980s and forces the smallest of ever been since becoming a separate service him enough at ourselves in the trade space between readiness and modern nation. i urge you to do all the arbitrary cuts the sequestration measures for the current fiscal year by sequestration is inevitable i heartily applaud efforts we've heard about this morning to grab whatever flexibility as possible in
relief for measures like the death of 50/50, 8021 other restrictions that limit flexibility to mitigate impacts of sequestration in a year-long revolution. this is initial budget and i believe unusual mashers are worth considering this year. thank you for allowing us to be here and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your statement. we appreciate what you had to tell us and will pay strict attention. a day to introduce without the army national guard america the national reserves, a lot of the things we were doing and could not do a the importance of the organization you need and would be happy to hear from you at this point. >> thank you, chairman young, ranking member viclosky, chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, thank you for the
opportunity. it's a privilege and honor to be here representing the army national guardsman. in may 43 years serving in military uniform with the national guard i've witnessed her transformation from a strategic reserve into a premier operational force. the armenian national guard capabilities compatibility, experience and operational relationships with all of our military services has been incredibly valuable to our nation, tourist states and territories and the district of columbia. marked by the promise of a year-long resolution with the threat of sequestration puts the readiness of this operational for severus. the budget uncertainty is already degrading ability to provide forces to meet our domestic and overseas missions. i provided the 54 adjutants
general with a summary of near-term measures to assist them to medicaid budget risk and drive to readiness. examining and reducing overhead, curtailing conferences, not renewing temporary civilian personnel combat veteran hiring freezes and aircraft flying hours. the national guard rapidly expands capability and capacity of the active component when called to federal service as well as civil authorities in the 51st date territories and the district of columbia. we provide organized discipline and properly equipped military unit on a very short time is to support first responders. as typified in last week's snowstorm response in the midwest, most notably in 2012 and response to hurricane sandy, governors were able to put thousands of guardsmen on the
ground within hours to come to the aid of citizens. we were able to do this because of the institutional procurement, training and educational and upper level maintenance programs the army and air force provide us with. reductions in critical areas will have an immediate impact on national guard readiness. in a matter of months, our readiness is a force for the nation's defense and an immediate home and response capability will be eroded. for example, dear national guard is delaying the 27th of march at aircraft dimensions into the type of maintenance program. because of our lack of flexibility to manage a $1 currently under the continuing resolution. this delay will return these assets to their unit.
custody facility sustainment, restoration and modernization will degrade an already aging infrastructure. the continuing resolution prohibits new start to military construction, further threatening army modernization program. the quality of facilities located in 3000 communities across the states directly affects readiness and ability to quickly respond to disasters across the country. further because of the real responsibility -- a real possibility of sequestration, thousands of americans who support the national guard on a full-time basis are likely to face furlough of up to 22 days. this would equate losing 9 million man-hours especially in our maintenance in areas of training. our military technicians who work alongside her civilian personnel would sacrifice as
well as all dod, almost 870 of the the employees would lose up to 20% of their pay for five to six months. potential furloughs and shortfalls in operations and maintenance, funding impact on aviation would be the first to fall. we anticipate a reduced level of readiness by our pilots because the production and instruct their pilot training as zealous ability to get pilot at the time i go through major structure changes in the army or the air national guard, but the aviation be affected as well. aviation is one of the essential 10 our governors are planned during disasters. this will be degraded as resources are prioritized to this deployment site. additionally, preparations and trained up to 13,000 soldiers and airmen assigned to unit
given the mission to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear terrorist attacks or industrial accidents in the home and will suffer his exercises and training events are delayed or canceled by reductions in operations and maintenance funding. the fiscal situation today and after the first of march will have a measurable and dramatic effect on critical national guard capabilities and our ability to rapidly respond to both domestic and federal requirements. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all very much. this has been a powerful hearing so far. i just wish that everyone in our country could hear the real story as you've told us you this morning. didn't ask for that. i will do my very best to get everyone up for questions. i will first yield to
mr. viclosky. >> i appreciate the yield. i would feel to this lowey at this time. >> i think the chair. unfortunate to have to leave, so thank you for giving me the opportunity. under normal circumstances, dod hires 2000 personnel per week, 44% of whom are veterans. sequestration of the significant fact, the army allowed had 250,000, many whom are veterans. general odierno, colliers request rations plans affect the hiring of veterans by dod about other areas do you anticipate veterans will be impacted and how will transition assistance programs the effect did either the general or unnecessary
distinguished panel? >> thank you very much, congresswoman. the couple things. one is first we are doing our best to continue veterans with higher priority. as we have hiring freezes in place now, that limits us to hire anybody to include veterans, so will have an impact on hiring veterans. the more important for your sem is downsizing, we expect every year for the next five to seven years will transition 200,000 soldiers a year from the act is component, national guard and army reserve out of the army. so we pay a lot of attention into appropriate employment. we stood up coordinating with many community partners around the country to do this.
our ability to continue to help them implement the programs to ensure we a proper transition in these that search. >> i notice he said in a letter january for team, he talked about how you begin your career in a hollow force. hollow army were the correct words. i do not want to end my career in a hollow army. during her 36 year distinguished career come you commanded the army at all levels. can you describe for us what it was like to begin your career in a hollow force, provide a comparison to a hollow force of the click today in areas that didn't exist post-vietnam like women in combat and what do you see as the long-term consequences of a hollow force?
>> thank you very much. what i saw was a force under resource so they were unable to do the training to meet readiness levels necessary. they were undisciplined. we did not have the abilities to man the force appropriately, so we had a nice balance between and strength in numbers, readiness levels of the work modernized. with no significant modernization programs at this time. as i got in the army in the 80s and early 90s, we went to modernization and they started to increase our ability. we got the end strike matched up with readiness and modernization programs that we became an army that was trained, ready, which is then executed on several occasions since then very successful. what i worry about is weak and the mismatch between an strength
and readiness and modernization of a fight to keep it in balance. a couple things we have to do. one is we have to make sure we have flexibility to ensure we sustain balance within the force, which gets to comment some flexibility necessary. there's a certain level of capacity to deter in that capacity has to be ready at all times and that's what i worry about us to move forward or budget cuts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll submit the other questions to the record. >> thank you, this lowey. mr. frelinghuysen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for what you do and for looking for the men and women who served so proudly and we still have well over 60,000 serving proudly in really another parts of the world. i'd like each of you, i think
general odierno commented to reflect on the size of services of the budget control act to push down the sides we have a continuous solution that affects the site of each of your forces and certainly the sequester was going to be damaging in that regard. which you can you some further reflections and make one additional comment. i like taking a page under general amos' comments. other nations are watching us and of course some of those nations are depending on us. so they are looking at how we are rightsizing our forces given all of these challenges. thank you. >> congressman frelinghuysen, leicester he testified we move the army and reduction of 80,000 that i'm comfortable with that because of the fact our army had
crowed based on our conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. although we still had risk and i would say at the edge of risk, i was okay with reducing forces. it was sequestration, we now have to reduce the army somewhere around 100,000 people and that will break down somewhere between 40,000 to 60,000 in the active component, some of the truth when it does introduce those men the guard and 15 and 25,000 in the u.s. reserve. that necessitated our ability to respond to contingencies and ability to meet what i believe is an uncertain future ahead of us. >> deployments obviously. >> admiral, thank you. >> congressmen, people like to count ships in the navy. before the budget control act, that's her benchmark here.
before the contract we have about 315 ships in 2020. after the budget control act today we will have 295. but sequestration in a continuing resolution to reconcile all that goes with that, we are looking at 2020 about 30 to 40 the ships. 265, 260 something like that. you can see the set production. >> general. >> congressmen, were in her way down to 182,000. i testified before that is considering the environment at about the right amount they could face the four sides while manned inside each unit not having that view is that his and ill-equipped and also accounts for lessons at the last 11 years
of war. when airplanes hit the building where 173,600 marines. so we are on our way and you might say was the matter with 173? since airplanes hit the building with added 3600 marines are operations command and another 2500 for cybercolumn of them at is on its way to 3500. we've added capabilities like human intelligence and all these capabilities that have become lessons of war for the last 11 years. we are on our way down to 182. if sequestration has beyond this, i'm not sure this ground floor of the elevator. cannot see how we maintain 182. >> server, i came into an air force for 700,000 people. we're now going under 326,000 during the fight. we've been downsizing for quite
some time. to produce about 500 aircraft. if our current force structure posted 326, we believe matches at an ironman casillas defense strategy aligned with it. if sequestration introduces a very grim reality and causes us to relook everything. and maybe what we have to do is figure out what the reliable string of numbers are for the tenure sissy frustration. we have to look at what kind of capability and core missionaries will the united states air force need to provide 10 years from now unrealistically within toplines you may provide that and then we have to back up to figure how to go from here to there. it would different from the air force we have today. >> congressmen, the army national guard today is headed for a number of 350,000 at the
end of the current drawdown. we are comfortable, but realizing that was where we were previous to 9/11 and the threats have grown. we us who are faced in the late 70s and 80s before that, we were protected by oceans and geography. the demands in the homeland anytime we have to get ready to go to war, both guardsman, arun army on every contingency plan for the federal site to provide capability to respond to disasters in the homeland are planning closely right now with fema and complex catastrophes, whether man-made or terres, sequestration will put numbers at risk. the aircraft was set at 105,000. it would take that further, lafayette to the federal mission and stay mission. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you, mr. frelinghuysen. mr. moran. >> thank you, mr. chairman. vitreous impact of sequestration because there's no question it's going to affect on friday and there's a good chance will be incorporated through much of the fiscal year is not the entire fiscal year. you've got situations that have to be addressed whatever the vehicle is. for example, your overseas contingency account is subject to sequestration, but uniformed personnel are not. i don't know how you handle that. i'll throw these things out. i think some of you to give some guidance. the continuing resolution itself poses several problems. the cr is currently structured in place for the balance of the year they would be substantially
shorter race budget operations and maintenance funds. we are told there would be an imbalance of the military services short of no less than $14.5 billion. i know you have more flexibility there, but there's a real shortfall right now and if we don't know if a lot of programs into that, i'd like to know how you're going to deal with it. and then in the overseas contingency account, the army estimates of shortfall in excess of 6 billion. the navy has a shortfall of almost half a billion because of additional carrier presence in the persian gulf in the air force estimates a shortfall of $2 billion. from an appropriations standpoint, i do what you have to be too much in the weeds, but we need some guidance. the balances have that you two
so the current rate. that may be how you're going to do with it, but i would like to hear how you're going to deal with these imbalances are currently facing, particularly the osm account. maybe we should start from general odierno because you have the most at stake in terms of the account. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is about $18 billion toward a new outline clearly. i don't want to get into too much detail, but i see what further 12 to 13 match it, we moved a lot as a lamb to the base. because of that, the $12 has shorted a significantly soviet authorities to move it around.
as you so adequately fed, 14.5 million is what our problem is, so it really causes us problems. with the overseas accounts coming at us reducing personnel, but as you take people out of afghanistan, as you close bases and redeploy equipment, the amount of money necessary is underestimated and closing of pakistan did not hope. that increase the cost. the set list as a significant shortfall. and then we have about 6,000,000,005.5 and sequestration. so we have to take it out of our army accounts to pay these bills and that leaves us frankly after we take that out, only billion dollars in element taking care of family programs suicide to
stop training for 80% of the forceful continuing to train us in afghanistan. we reduce the maintenance of our facilities on malvern solutions which will cost us more money down the road if we didn't maintain them and will cut some of our programs. for us we have no choice. we have to pay those bills, so it's going to cost us significantly, which would then create another readiness problem because we moved a lot of the things we should have done in 13 to 14 and one have enough money to make up for what they couldn't do in 13 to continue stability or >> thank you, sir. we are looking at 15 billion. that's 4.5 billion due to continuing revolution. that's only operations account.
so for operations to go with the money as an insurance solution is general odierno mention they bring that down to what we believe is feasible and responsible. we are slowing the burn rate as you say. there's a temporal aspect as time goes on and you say we've got to do this now or not, you've got to fish or cut day. sherman's deployment got press because we said we need to present an option to our bosses and say we deploy it or we don't. if we deploy it, we're concerned because the money we use will not be training. so we have to let down the road is general odierno said. those guys won't be trained to deploy, so we'll send the truman and not have somebody ready down the road.
so the decision was made to will determine and now we retain our presence in the central command. a lot of that will be next. shapes do for shapes two from eight mins. to the sender and or do we hold the money? we have to hold the money lost opportunity. we've lost $600 million in opportunity that is real readiness because of decisions in february 2 so the burn rate. another 1.2 in march if we don't have a relief of sequestration or ability to move money. because of the continuing resolution, and our investment accounts, we have more investment than we planned and 13. if we could get access, that would certainly help critical shortages. >> this seems to be in the continuing resolution.
>> congressmen, we are sitting to billion dollar shorted out one bad for the marine corps, for operations this year. i said revalue reading as and you know that as aforesaid as to maintain a high state of readiness to respond to today's crisis with today's force today. so we have no dinner on account into operational readiness. end of about $400 million from facility statement modernization restoration come equipment readiness come ability to reset equipment out of afghanistan. i've still got a $3.2 billion bill. i've taken money out of those accounts and put it to my operational forces currently deployed to maintain readiness and also those forces next to deploy, the once getting ready
to increase readiness. so close her billion dollars bill i pay in, but that will eventually come to roost next year or the year after that is readiness in equipment and facilities, the ability to train back home is reduced as i first readiness into the next two to four units. >> i hate to see a $1.8 billion shortfall of because this is serious money, but compared to the navy and army problems is clearly not as large. aren't takamori ferdy got approval to reprogram one point to come which drives other impacts are mentioned in my opening statement. if we have the ability to transfer appropriations, we would take that, that's where we have to go in our vector readiness versus modernization.
>> congressmen, or a local account we would lay heavily on the air force and army judah forces overseas. but also returning equipment at home, the reset program and is program unassertive backlog will further delay equipment to armories to be utilized in the home and to respond to domestic disasters. additionally, the current cr is working closely with mark welsh to get back into death of maintenance and i will have to be parked on the rant this year because abilities transferring this money to the air force and air guard. probably the more immediate impact will see as the backlog in schools basic training, pilot training the services need money to keep school slots open.
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. granger. >> mr. chairman, topic of today's hearing as deities fiscal challenges that we agree is the reason is to provide resources not only for equipment, but for people needed to defend this great nation. today we discussed burger challenges and i were to focus on veterans to more fighters because they should be our top priority and how we fund for critical services for soldiers when they return from the battlefield. we must not balance needs to sacrifice our military. at her directly that the health service we provide for wounded warriors has at times been inadequate. when i hear soldiers had rather go back to iraq any day, it causes me great concern.
general odierno, many come from army soldiers and the pastor record from 30 soldiers and make a straight blade instead of receiving a day to assist you ptsd or tbi, they were diagnosed with medical conditions unrelated to service that allowed the army to discharge them. soldiers tell me their command disciplinary action if the soldiers questioned diagnosis. and what to make sure the subcommittee alan hill after suffering a brain injury in combat. the command staff inaccurately insisted none calm that related her problem instead. they allow the army to discharge about providing treatment after sergeant housewife contacted my office concerned her husband was not getting the treatment needed from a sergeant who was physically attacked by two of
search on the wounded warrior transition in the stacks of all those substantiated. december 2012 army published a report of an investigation conducted by the western regional medical command of the wounded warrior transition team. the report ranking officers who make fun of soldiers in wheelchairs were met with a toxic environment. due to the elevation of cases, the army decided to conduct an outside investigation and promised improvements are underway. this is progress, that the army conducted a report last year and will get you the results. this is to import and our soldiers helped us too important to have been even one time. general odierno master of form and ranking member thought
problems. you're aware that problems at fort bliss. do you believe this is a systemic problem related to budgetary concerns were limited to a few negligent boards? >> we take a series years later. we did an investigation and just finished the second outlook at fort lewis completed within the last couple weeks to some of the concerns he raised. i truly believe these are what i call anecdotal individual events to make sharia the right people with our wounded warriors. i do not think us the resources we have involved. i believe it's about getting the right people doing the right thing to recommend oversight command oversight and we take every one of these allegations
very serious and continue to look very carefully. i believe overall our system is good, but we do have outliers and people that are not doing the right thing and it has spread to her attention so they can investigate and make sure soldiers get the best care. we want to take care of our young men and women. they deserve it almost do everything we can to ensure that. >> they just listen to distinguish man and the wonderful job you do an impossible situation of being put into some of the coyote, but we have to do our very best for those who served and their treatment and certainly when i looked at the assembly lifted over 30 cases, 64 over september september 2010 and saw similar stories and statements made over
and over and we couldn't get the information we needed more information that fit their information. we can't think this cuts in the health care of our soldiers that we hear now from other services also. so please take this seriously. i know you got the results, the review last year in the practice of evaluating psychiatric orders. you know when that report will be released quakes >> were about ready to attribute very shortly. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mitch mcconnell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with a quote from president john kennedy who said our problems are man-made, therefore can be solved by man. it's shameful, a man-made mess completely and wholly
irreversible. gentlemen, i believe your dire predictions for the consequences sequestration on military readiness, capabilities and overall national security. we are shooting ourselves in the foot. responsible leaders for spending, revenues come in tax expenditures the table and come up with a compromise that protects the american people because the government provides services and protections for every american. i voted against because they strongly oppose the idea of passing bad cause that they never take effect. when i came to congress in 2001, the pentagon budget was $310 billion in the federal government is projected to have a 10 year budget surplus of over $5 trillion. since then, the pentagon budget has doubled trillions of dollars on wars, tax cuts in programs that have all been put on a credit card. for much of the past decade, the
brave americans in uniform have been serving up fighting in afghanistan and iraq. over a trillion dollar spent wars and not 1 penny of revenue mysteries by congress to pay for those fours. to fight the wars, absolute and total sacrifice was demanded and given for military leaders here today, minute by minute command, all of your families of all delivered for us upon her in a thank you. the arrest of the american people have been asked to sacrifice nothing. to contribute nothing extra. this congress right now is doing nothing but watching as education, public health, infrastructure investment for military readiness are guided. again, revenues off the table. even if it results in our nation less secure than must protect it. we have an obligation to act.
as americans, we need to pay for the government we want and pay for a strong military. for the privilege of living in a free democratic nation means paying higher taxes you can tell by viacom vincennes willing to pay for that. instead will be looking at kicking kids out of head start. such element, the focus of my question will be a little different. for military personnel aquinas protected from sequestration, would appear an important service supporting military families are not protected. so my question is what will be the effect of sequestration and military families? the spouses and children, quality-of-life of those loved ones who support our war fighter? for example, is it accurate to no cuts to the child development centers and impact each military schools will directly hit
children of servicemen and women? so finally, what will be the impact on retaining our best and brightest members of the military when this fiscal mess means their jobs are more difficult and undermines the well-being of families, especially children. how do we keep our best and brightest, gentlemen? >> congresswoman, with a little over 19,000 civilian marines whose salaries come from appropriated funds. a large percentage of those if not all of our folks that deal with child development center trainer children on mental health providers, the ones that work with not only our